Intellectual Property

  • Watch OTW Legal Representing Fans in Washington

    By Claudia Rebaza on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 - 5:14pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    • The OTW recently submitted comments to the NTIA/PTO with the help of fan contributions. Rebecca Tushnet, an OTW Legal Committee staffer will speak in person on December 12 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A webcast will be available. Rebecca is part of a panel on Legal Framework for Remixes which will speak at 1700 UTC.
    • Rebecca also posted a summary of comments from other organizations to the NTIA/PTO on her blog. The groups include Deviant Art, Creative Commons, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Consumer Electronics Association.
    • The always busy Rebecca also took questions from users at io9 about fanfiction and mashups. One of the first questions regarded the legality of RPF. Rebecca's answer? "[T]hat doesn't implicate copyright at all. The possible issues involve defamation—but defamation requires that the audience believe that it's getting a statement of fact, and that's unlikely to happen with RPF...The other possibility is what's known as a right of publicity claim. But noncommercial fiction is outside the scope of the right of publicity, and even commercial fiction—the kind Joyce Carol Oates writes with her romans a clef—should be. There are some troubling cases finding that video games violate football players' right of publicity, but nobody thinks that a novel could do so, even one sold for profit."
  • OTW's Legal Committee Comments to the NTIA/PTO

    By Claudia Rebaza on Sunday, 17 November 2013 - 4:47pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    In October 2013, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) sought public comments on copyright policy issues, including the legal framework for the creation of remixes. Our Legal Committee used many stories submitted by fans to explain to these agencies, which are likely to propose new legislation about copyright, why any change in copyright law should favor freedom to make transformative works.

    The document they submitted is now available for viewing on the OTW website (PDF format) and it contains many striking fandom experiences.

    The OTW's Legal Committee argued that fair use remains central to remix cultures. Fandom builds communities and enables joys that can't be found in commercialized spaces. For example, Amazon’s Kindle Worlds is a commercial innovation that uses the language of remix, but fails to provide its benefits.

    The OTW concluded that "However the copyright reform project proceeds, it is vital that it not ignore the legitimate interests of the remixers who are working in every form of media. They are the future of our culture. Artists, not lawyers, should determine the shape of works to come."

    The process of soliciting comments was very moving and meaningful for the Legal Committee. The stories Legal received reinforced the OTW's knowledge that the opportunity to create and consume fanworks has made an incalculable difference in people’s lives, something which we presented in the above document. Our Legal Committee appreciates the contributions of everyone who sent in a story and thanks you for your help!

  • Important Developments in Fair Use Cases

    By Claudia Rebaza on Friday, 15 November 2013 - 4:34pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    On Thursday, November 14, 2013, Judge Denny Chin finally issued a ruling in a case begun in 2005 when a writers' organization sued Google over their book-scanning project. The OTW was pleased to see that there is a lot in the case that supports fans engaged in creating and sharing transformative works, and sites (like An Archive of Our Own) that host their works.

    While the case itself concerned Google’s scans of entire books - both fiction and nonfiction, both public domain and still protected by copyright law - the judge’s analysis of why Google Books are transformative and protected by Fair Use considerations is in line with the OTW’s longstanding analysis of Fair Use.

    Google Books was sued by book publishers who felt that Google’s scans violated the copyrights they had in the books. Google put the contents of millions of books into a database that users could search, but Google Books would only display a page or two of a book’s contents; there were no ads on Google Books pages that hosted scans.

    Google argued that scanning the books and hosting the contents in a searchable database was transformative and thus did not infringe on the publishers’ copyrights. The court applied the four-part standard used to determine whether a work is transformative or infringing, and held that most of the factors strongly favored Fair Use.

    The court said that Google Books “advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders.”

    While the case itself made no mention of fanworks, the court's reasoning about the transformative benefits of Google Books may apply at least as much--if not more--to fanworks. The court noted that one of the reasons Google Books was transformative was because it "adds value to the original" and allows for "the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.” In addition, the court considered ways in which Google Books allow people to discover books they were not already aware of. As the court explained, the fact that “Google Books provides a way for authors' works to become noticed” provided strong support for the court's Fair Use decision. The same arguments undoubtedly apply to fanworks, which create new information, aesthetics, insights, and understandings to their source material, and attract fans to authors, music, shows, movies, games, and other works they might not have discovered without fandom connections. Thus, although this decision doesn't relate directly to fanworks, it does embody legal principles that the OTW has long supported.

    The Author’s Guild, the group that sued Google, said that they would appeal the decision -- so this long-running case may continue on in the courts. However, the ruling in a companion case, of Authors Guild v HathiTrust, which is also being appealed, suggests that fair use arguments are being looked upon favorably by the courts, whether it's a non-profit entity, such as a group of libraries, or a for-profit entity such as Google. In addition, this week the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an appellate court ruling in Prince v. Cariou, which supports the rights of remix artists under fair use.

  • OTW Fannews: Playfulness and IP

    By Claudia Rebaza on Thursday, 14 November 2013 - 5:28pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of Lawrence Lessig holding a light saber by the logo for the EFF, facing off against the logo of Liberation holding up cash and a DMCA notice.

    • The University of Buffalo hosted a lecture by intellectual property scholar Madhavi Sunder titled Learning by Doing. Sunder says. “'Copyright owners have tolerated much fan activity on the theory that lawsuits can turn fans’ love to hate. But the emergence of an ‘experience economy’ may lead some owners of cultural property to reconsider their laissez-faire attitude toward play'...But, Sunder says, that impulse raises caution flags about 'the commoditization of fundamental human experiences and play.'...And because IP law is 'fundamentally about promoting knowledge and learning,' Sunder says, lawyers need to be careful to protect that goal, even when they are asked to help corporations turn such play into a commodity to be bought and sold.'"
    • One place rife with automated takedowns, which are particularly likely to be issued indiscriminately, is YouTube. Fortunately, as NPR put in its story title Record Label Picks Copyright Fight — With The Wrong Guy, IP scholar Lawrence Lessig had a video of a lecture taken down due to a small music clip within it. "At first, YouTube took it down. But being a copyright attorney, Lessig knew his rights. He was entitled to use these clips in a lecture under a legal doctrine known as fair use...Liberation Music eventually backed down. But Lessig decided to invoke another part of the copyright law, 'which basically polices bad-faith lawsuits,' he says — threats made fraudulently or without proper basis. Lessig is suing Liberation Music because he wants labels to stop relying on automated systems to send out takedown notices."
    • As vidders well know, hosting sites for their fanworks tend to be more limited than those for other media, and they have often booted fan content entirely when the sites changes their marketing focus. The latest site to evict fan videos is Blip.tv, which deleted content within the past week. The OTW has some tips about alternatives for video makers and the top pick is Critical Commons. Though academic in nature, they welcome fanworks, support fair use, and provide a good alternative to commercial sites such as Vimeo and YouTube. The site already hosts some key works that are part of vidding history.
    • A new software program, Plotagon, offers a way to create a paint-by-numbers fanwork. "Available for Mac and PC, the basic 'city' version of Plotagon software is free and includes five actors and six environments. To create a Plotagon movie, users simply choose characters and an environment, type a script, add a few stage directions and press 'play.' Plotagon movies can be shared online and viewed at Plotagon.com/movies." Properties include Alice in Wonderland and Pride and Prejudice.

    What fanwork and intellectual property stories have you seen? Write about it on Fanlore! Contributions are welcome from all fans.

    We want your suggestions! If you know of an essay, video, article, podcast, or link you think we should know about, comment on the most recent OTW Fannews post. Links are welcome in all languages! Submitting a link doesn't guarantee that it will be included in a roundup post, and inclusion of a link doesn't mean that it is endorsed by the OTW.

  • Proposal for a Small Claims Copyright Process

    By Claudia Rebaza on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 - 8:01pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    The U.S. Congress is taking initial steps to write what the Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante, called "the next great copyright act." This will be a long, complicated process, but there are some proposals already on the table, including one for a "small claims" process for copyright.

    Traditionally, if a copyright was infringed, the owner had two options: send a cease and desist letter with hopes that the infringer would stop (and possibly pay money), or take the matter to federal court through a standard lawsuit.

    But in September, 2013, the US Copyright Office introduced a proposal that would allow for relatively small copyright claims to be brought in front of a tribunal of copyright experts if both sides agreed.

    As the Copyright Office said:

    "Not all of copyright owners have the same resources to bring a federal lawsuit, which can require substantial time, money, and effort. Moreover, while a copyright owner may want to stop an infringement that has caused a relatively small amount of economic damage, that owner may be dissuaded from filing a lawsuit because the prospect of a modest recovery may not justify the potentially large expense of litigation."

    The implications of such a proposal on fanworks are two-fold, and a mixed bag for fans.

    First, to the extent that fanworks are protectable by copyright -- a complicated question in its own right -- it might make it easier for fan creators to seek redress against people who copy their work without permission, as well as make them stop the infringement. So for example, if a fan creator found their work copied without permission (such as printed onto shirts or calendars, or used in ads), they might be able to register the work with the Copyright Office and then, if the other party agreed, use the tribunal to resolve the issue. An order to stop infringing and limited money damages might be available. The proceeding is expected to be simpler than a traditional lawsuit in federal court, in part because all the arguments will be made electronically rather than in person. It wouldn't simplify the question of whether the fanwork was protected by copyright, but it might simplify the process of dispute resolution if it were.

    Second, making it easier and cheaper for copyright owners to get damages could mean that copyright owners would assert more claims where fair use should actually apply. There is an unfortunate history of some copyright owners abusing simple procedures, such as DMCA notices, in order to suppress fair uses they just don’t like. The proposed tribunal would be able to consider fair use and other defenses for infringement, but no one knows whether the experts would be favorable to fair use or skeptical of it. People with strong fair use defenses might well prefer the additional protections found in federal court. Because the tribunal would be voluntary, any fan who received an infringement claim would want to consult a U.S. lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law and is respectful of fair use before agreeing to participate.

    The OTW will be watching these issues as they develop. While there's no specific timetable for congressional action at this time, there will likely be hearings on this and other copyright issues over the coming year; the Copyright Office can't turn these proposals into law on their own. Keep an eye out; when Congress begins hearings, it will be very important for representatives to hear from people supporting fair use to balance out the concerns of the giants.

  • OTW Fannews: Legal challenges

    By Claudia Rebaza on Saturday, 19 October 2013 - 6:01pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Diane of scales set over an antique desk and bookcase in candlelight

    • Public Knowledge announced its inaugural artist-in-residence, Elisa Kreisinger. She is currently soliciting contributors to her project Fair User(s) which asks "If you know of someone who has experienced any removal or disabling of content due to copyright please direct them to this survey."
    • Copyright attorney Timothy B. McCormack wrote about a recent lawsuit against the show Heroes of Cos-Play. "Cos-play costumes are derivative works because they are recasting the work their costume is based on into a new medium while still representing the original work of authorship. In some cases they might also be 'exact copies' 'strikingly similar' copies or 'substantially similar' copies. This means anyone who makes a costume based on an original work is required to obtain a copyright license from the owner if they do not want to commit copyright infringement. As a practical matter, however, it is unlikely cos-players will be sued unless they are trying to use their infringing costume to make a profit. The recent lawsuits involving NBC and the show 'Heroes of "Cos-Play,"' however, might beg to differ."
    • While most people think of rights holders as those who control creative works, one set of cosplayers ran into legal problems with a commercial carpet company. "Apparently the carpet costumes were so popular that one of the original cosplayers offered a version of the Marriott carpet pattern for the presumably vast number of people who also wanted to dress up in carpet-themed camo gear. Seeing this, carpet designers Couristan Inc. sent cosplay suppliers Volpin Props a Cease & Desist letter."
    • The proposed efforts in the U.K. to restrict online access to porn received worldwide attention, but less of it was paid to protests raised by users. At least one of them expressed fandom concerns about the legislation. "Another activist, Jess Palmer, was cheered by members after saying a pornography filter would have prevented her from discovering fan fiction with some adult themes and finding out about asexuality. Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge, successfully asked for the motion to be 'referred back' to the party's policy committee for a rethink. He said there are some problems with children accessing internet pornography but this is not the solution."
    • Author Misha Burnett talked about aspects of fanfiction and their legal implications. "Genres are largely influenced by a particular work. One could make the case that Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer was Phillip Marlowe fan fiction. As Charles points out, J R R Tolkien’s Lord Of The Rings series has inspired the entire genre of Epic Fantasy." He also cites the many fiction and non-fiction works he has drawn on for his stories. "I don’t think that any author can be entirely free of the influence of other authors–what we read becomes a part of the experience that we draw upon to create our own work. The extent to which we are influenced by any one particular work is a matter of personal taste, however."

    What legal discussions have you seen pertaining to fandom? Write about them in Fanlore! Contributions are welcome from all fans.

    We want your suggestions! If you know of an essay, video, article, podcast, or link you think we should know about, comment on the most recent OTW Fannews post. Links are welcome in all languages! Submitting a link doesn't guarantee that it will be included in a roundup post, and inclusion of a link doesn't mean that it is endorsed by the OTW.

  • OTW Fannews: Working for a better playing field

    By Claudia Rebaza on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 - 5:01pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Natasha of a man's side profile done as a doodle

    • Michelle Dean wrote in Flavorwire about why Kurt Vonnegut should not be part of Kindle Worlds. "The fights about identity politics in the fan-fiction community make those in good, old real world politics child’s play — which mostly tells you how crucially important those debates are to a great many people. There is, I am saying, in the better bits of fan-fiction a desire for a truly 'transformative' use. And it’s one we might do well to respect — even if we are in charge of some of the most prestigious literary estates in the country."
    • Fans are becoming more active in demanding their rights to fair use of their entertainment. But fans can also be confused about what steps they should take to protect themselves and which rights to assert. Business 2 Community published a set of legal myths about fanfiction, though the author noted she was not an attorney. The myths included believing that disclaimers protect you, and believing that fanfiction can't be plagiarized.
    • HuffPost Live hosted a discussion about the legality of fanfiction with various authors including Naomi Novik. In response to a discussion about how permissiveness varies from author to author, she pointed out "I'm one of the founders of The Organization for Tranformative Works, which is a non-profit that works to protect the rights of fan creators. And the Archive of Our Own is based on the principle that people do have the right under fair use protection in the U.S. to write transformative, non-commercial works of fanfiction, whether or not the author consents." Comparing fanfiction to the right of readers to review a work of fiction, she said "We generally recognize that people have the right to respond as they want." (No transcript available)
    • While hosting content digitally has made sharing fanworks easier and broadened the possibilities of who can take part, when a site used by fans closes or is sold, very often content posted there gets lost as was the case for Bebo users. In the end, the right to create needs to go hand-in-hand with the ability to share and preserve.

    What discussion have you seen about legal aspects of fanworks? Write about it in Fanlore! Contributions are welcome from all fans.

    We want your suggestions! If you know of an essay, video, article, podcast, or link you think we should know about, comment on the most recent OTW Fannews post. Links are welcome in all languages! Submitting a link doesn't guarantee that it will be included in a roundup post, and inclusion of a link doesn't mean that it is endorsed by the OTW.

  • No New SOPA for Fanworks

    By Claudia Rebaza on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 - 3:41pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Diane of a magnifying glass with a justice scale inside

    Back in 2011, legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that targeted "piracy" of copyrighted works. These were known as SOPA and its U.S. Senate counterpart, PIPA. The OTW has written about the issue several times. Thanks to activism on the part of Internet users and the participation of various large, well known online sites, the legislation was shelved.

    Recently concern has emerged among fan communities that the legislation is back and will result in radical changes in how fans will be able to create and share fanworks. While it's wise for fans to be vigilant in protecting their rights, it's also important to avoid misinformation.

    The current alarm seems to be in response to a paper published by the U.S. Commerce Department earlier this summer. In this paper they have asked Congress to amend the Copyright Act itself to make it a felony to reproduce or distribute at least 10 or more copies of copyrighted works with a total retail value of at least $2,500. In other words, their stated intention is to match up aspects of 20+ year-old laws to make them more consistent with each other when applied to downloading and streaming. Whether that’s a good idea or not is outside the OTW's focus on fanworks, because streaming of fanworks would still be protected under Fair Use as transformative works. To be clear, the revision proposed by the Commerce Department may have been included as part of SOPA, but nowhere in the recent Commerce Department paper did they ask Congress to bring back SOPA wholesale, with its broader provisions about blocking websites.

    Only the U.S. Congress can create legislation by writing a bill; the Commerce Department is an administrative body and it can’t make something a felony, although it can influence legislation in various ways, including through the U.S. Trade Representative's negotiations with other countries. Assuming that legislation was written and brought before congressional committees, there would be an opportunity for anti-SOPA forces to weigh in. Further, if this particular Commerce Department proposal did become law, it would have no direct impact on fanworks or transformative works because of the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act.

    To be clear, the provision proposed by the Commerce Department could have some impact on fandom activities. If it were to become law it could affect, for example, live group viewings of TV shows or films through unlicensed sites. It could also potentially affect whether certain websites implemented screening mechanisms that didn't allow for fair use, though other aspects of copyright law are likely to be much more important than a change in criminal penalties. But even if the proposed law were enacted, it wouldn't have any direct impact on transformative fanworks like those hosted by the AO3. Such works aren't, and wouldn't become, actionable infringement because “fair use [including in a transformative work] is a lawful use of copyright.”

    If you have questions about legal matters related to fanworks and fan activities, you can always send a message to the OTW's legal team (and thank you to those who alerted us to this matter!); please get in touch with us if you see statements that a certain proposal or piece of legislation would force the OTW and/or AO3 to shut down. We are advocates for and about fandom, and we will protect fans' rights to be creative and share their creativity noncommercially, and work to stop or overturn any laws that would block fans from doing so. You can also subscribe to OTW News through the platform of your choice to stay informed.

  • OTW Fannews: Who's claiming fanworks?

    By Claudia Rebaza on Friday, 23 August 2013 - 7:03pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Robyn with the post title and OTW logo

    • Momentum Books covered the usual concerns about authorship in the fanfic age. But they also cited the case of "Jordin B. Williams’ novel Amazingly Broken that has sparked accusations of intense plagiarism of multiple best sellers, identity fraud, and all-round skullduggery when it came to promoting the book. Readers were furious to find Williams’ book had directly plagiarised large passages from other authors of a similar genre, and the author has since been confusingly linked to a previous fanfiction story with a duplicate plotline...Perhaps these examples are a cautionary tale for aspiring authors looking to utilise online communities, or a warning to publishers to be wary of unknown writers."
    • Who owns fanworks may become a controversial topic, especially if media properties distribute it without saying if they got permission to do so. Collaborative writing projects have been online for a long time with open-source characters. These days successful projects may be closer than ever to fan-created works. Projects such as Wikia's collaborative writing offer is deliberately asking for fan participation. But there's no discussion of contributor rights in their announcement, or what agreements fans might have to sign.
    • Fanfic's ability to generate money is creating more open discussion about a project's fannish roots. But as this post at Today.com (which quotes TWC editor Karen Hellekson) mentions, who will benefit the most from this openness is still unknown. Says Henry Jenkins, "'The gender politics are very real here. The majority of fan fiction is written by women who are telling stories that don’t reach the public, because Hollywood has a hard time telling stories about women's lives.' He hopes that Amazon has women on its Kindle Worlds advisory board who understand the role women play in creating fan fiction 'or they’ll get serious pushback.'"

    What ownership disagreements have you seen surrounding fanworks? Write about them in Fanlore! Contributions are welcome from all fans.

    We want your suggestions! If you know of an essay, video, article, podcast, or link you think we should know about, comment on the most recent OTW Fannews post. Links are welcome in all languages! Submitting a link doesn't guarantee that it will be included in a roundup post, and inclusion of a link doesn't mean that it is endorsed by the OTW.

  • OTW Fannews: Knowing your rights

    By Claudia Rebaza on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 - 4:50pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Bremo reading This Image Has Been Removed for Copyright Reason

    • Microsoft has been in the news for its copyright decisions in the past few months. Shogun Gamer had a discussion about Microsoft's retraction of a DRM decision that would have limited game buyers' rights to share games and would have required people to be connected online daily, which also restricted who could use the content. Perhaps the earlier controversy informed their second decision to open up the X-box to development. "[T]he company is doing away with its unpopular publishing restrictions, opening the door for independent developers to create and release their own games on Xbox One without enlisting the aid of a publishing partner. That essentially turns every Xbox One owner -- from well known developers to your average Joe -- into a potential Xbox One game maker."
    • At PBS' Mediashift, Patricia Aufderheide discussed the case of a music copyright incident and its troubling outcome. "Baio warns fellow remixers everywhere that “fair use will not save you,” and “nothing you have ever made is fair use.” Whoa. Neither of these statements is true. Fair use is riding high in the courts. The fair uses of "Jersey Boys," who used clips from "The Ed Sullivan Show," were forcefully vindicated just a few weeks ago, and the litigious rightsholders were ordered to pay the defendants’ costs and fees. Georgia State University successfully defended a copyright lawsuit brought by greedy publishers, and got a court order for the publishers to pay over $3 million in attorneys’ fees and costs."
    • It's easy, however, to find cases of companies taking questionable actions, such as the movie subtitle fansite undertexter.se being raided by the police. The site contained user-submitted translations of movie dialog. "The copyright industry in Sweden has previously asserted threateningly that the dialog of a movie would be covered by the copyright monopoly, and that any fan translation – even for free – would be a violation of that monopoly." However, a similar case took place in Poland where "the charges were dropped and the expert opinion was that translating from hearing and sharing for free is not infringing the copyright monopoly. This is relevant as any EU court sets precedent all over the EU."

    What legal and technology stories have you seen that impact fan activities? Write about them in Fanlore! Contributions are welcome from all fans.

    We want your suggestions! If you know of an essay, video, article, podcast, or link you think we should know about, comment on the most recent OTW Fannews post. Links are welcome in all languages! Submitting a link doesn't guarantee that it will be included in a roundup post, and inclusion of a link doesn't mean that it is endorsed by the OTW.

Pages

Subscribe to Intellectual Property